PHOENIX: They flaunted their participation in the Jan. 6 riot at the US Capitol on social media and then, apparently realizing they were in legal trouble, rushed to delete evidence of it, authorities say. Now their attempts to cover up their role in the deadly siege are likely to come back to haunt them in court.
An Associated Press review of court records has found that at least 49 defendants are accused of trying to erase incriminating photos, videos and texts from phones or social media accounts documenting their conduct as a pro-Donald Trump mob stormed Congress and briefly interrupted the certification of Democrat Joe Biden’s election victory.
Experts say the efforts to scrub the social media accounts reveal a desperate willingness to manipulate evidence once these people realized they were in hot water. And, they say, it can serve as powerful proof of people’s consciousness of guilt and can make it harder to negotiate plea deals and seek leniency at sentencing.
“It makes them look tricky, makes them look sneaky,” said Gabriel J. Chin, who teaches criminal law at the University of California, Davis.
One such defendant is James Breheny, a member of the Oath Keepers extremist group, who bragged in texts to others about being inside the Capitol during the insurrection, authorities say. An associate instructed Breheny, in an encrypted message two days after the riot, to “delete all pictures, messages and get a new phone,” according to court documents.
That same day, the FBI said, Breheny shut down his Facebook account, where he had photos that he taken during the riot and complained the government had grown tyrannical. “The People’s Duty is to replace that Government with one they agree with,” Breheny wrote on Facebook on Jan. 6 in an exchange about the riot. “I’m all ears. What’s our options???”
Breheney’s lawyer, Harley Breite, said his client never obstructed the riot investigation or destroyed evidence, and that Breheny didn’t know when he shut down account that his content would be considered evidence.
Breite rejected the notion that Breheny might have been able to recognize, in the days immediately after Jan. 6 when the riot dominated news coverage, that the attack was a serious situation that could put Breheny’s liberty at risk.
“You can’t delete evidence if you don’t know you are being charged with anything,” Breite said.
Other defendants who have not been accused of destroying evidence still engaged in exchanges with others about deleting content, according to court documents.
The FBI said one woman who posted video and comments showing she was inside the Capitol during the attack later decided not to restore her new phone with her iCloud content — a move that authorities suspect was aimed at preventing them from uncovering the material.
In another case, authorities say screenshots from a North Carolina man’s deleted Facebook posts contradicted his claim during an interview with an FBI agent that he didn’t intend on disrupting the Electoral College certification.
Erasing digital content isn’t as easy as deleting content from phones, removing social media posts or shutting down accounts. Investigators have been able to retrieve the digital content by requesting it from social media companies, even after accounts are shut down.
Posts made on Facebook, Instagram and other social media platforms are recoverable for a certain period of time, and authorities routinely ask those companies to preserve the records until they get court orders to view the posts, said Adam Scott Wandt, a public policy professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice who trains law enforcement on cyber-based investigations.
Authorities also have other avenues for investigating whether someone has tried to delete evidence.
Even when a person removes content from an account, authorities may still get access to it if it had been backed up on a cloud server. People who aren’t involved in a crime yet were sent incriminating videos or photos may end up forwarding them to investigators. Also, metadata embedded in digital content can show whether it has been modified or deleted.
“You can’t do it,” said Joel Hirschhorn, a criminal defense lawyer in Miami who is not involved in Capitol riot cases. “The metadata will do them in every time.”
Only a handful of the more than 500 people across the US who have been arrested in the riot have actually been charged with tampering for deleting incriminating material from their phones or Facebook accounts.
They include several defendants in the sweeping case against members and associates of the Oath Keepers extremist group, who are accused of conspiring to block the certification of the vote. In one instance, a defendant instructed another to “make sure that all signal comms about the op has been deleted and burned,” authorities say.
But even if it does not result in more charges, deleting evidence will make it difficult for those defendants to get much benefit at sentencing for accepting responsibility for their actions, said Laurie Levenson, a professor at Loyola Law School.
Some lawyers might argue their clients removed the content to lessen the social impact that the attack had on their families and show they do not support what had occurred during the riot. But she said that argument has limits.
“The words ‘self-serving’ will come to mind,” Levenson said. “That’s what the prosecutors will argue — you removed it because all of a sudden, you have to face the consequences of your actions.”
Matthew Mark Wood, who acknowledged deleting content from his phone and Facebook account that showed presence in the Capitol during the riot, told an FBI agent that he did not intend on disrupting the Electoral College certification.
But investigators say screenshots of two of his deleted Facebook posts tell a different story.
In the posts, Wood reveled in rioters sending “those politicians running” and declared that he had stood up against a tyrannical government in the face of a stolen election, the FBI said in court records. “When diplomacy doesn’t work and your message has gone undelivered, it shouldn’t surprise you when we revolt,” Wood wrote. His lawyer did not return a call seeking comment.
Even though she is not accused of deleting content that showed she was inside the Capitol during the riot, one defendant told her father that she was not going to restore her new phone with her iCloud backup about three weeks after the riot, the FBI said.
“Stay off the clouds!” the father warned his daughter, according to authorities. “They are how they are screwing with us.”
US Capitol rioters accused of erasing content from social media, phones
https://arab.news/8w65h
US Capitol rioters accused of erasing content from social media, phones
- Experts say the efforts to scrub the social media accounts reveal a desperate willingness to manipulate evidence once these people realized they were in hot water
- Only a handful of the more than 500 people across the US who have been arrested in the riot have actually been charged
China court jails journalist for seven years on spy charges, family says
- Police in the Chinese capital detained veteran Chinese state media journalist Dong Yuyu in February 2022
- ‘Sentencing Yuyu to seven years in prison on no evidence declares to the world the bankruptcy of the justice system in China’
BEIJING/HONG KONG: A Beijing court sentenced veteran Chinese state media journalist Dong Yuyu on Friday to seven years in prison for espionage, his family said in a statement, calling the verdict a grave injustice.
Police in the Chinese capital detained the 62-year-old former Guangming Daily editor and journalist in February 2022 while he was lunching with a Japanese diplomat, the US National Press Club said in a statement. He was later charged with espionage.
“Sentencing Yuyu to seven years in prison on no evidence declares to the world the bankruptcy of the justice system in China,” Dong’s family said in a statement provided to Reuters.
“Today’s verdict is a grave injustice not only to Yuyu and his family but also to every freethinking Chinese journalist and every ordinary Chinese committed to friendly engagement with the world.”
The family added that in the court judgment, Japanese diplomats whom Dong met were “specifically named as agents of an ‘espionage organization,’ which is the Japanese embassy in Beijing.”
Dong’s conviction implied every Chinese citizen would be “expected to know that the Chinese government may consider those embassies to be ‘espionage organizations’,” it said, causing a chilling effect.
Police guarded the court on Friday, with seven police cars parked nearby, and journalists were asked to leave the area. A US diplomat said they had been barred from attending the hearing.
Dong has been detained in a Beijing prison since a closed-court hearing in July 2023, the press club said in September.
“Chinese authorities must reverse this unjust verdict, and protect the right of journalists to work freely and safely in China,” said Beh Lih Yi, Asia program manager at the Committee to Protect Journalists.
“Dong Yuyu should be reunited with his family immediately.”
Dong regularly had in-person exchanges with diplomats from various embassies and journalists.
The Japanese diplomat he met, one of two he had regularly met in the past, was also detained for several hours, spurring a complaint from Japan’s foreign ministry.
At the time, a Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson said the diplomat was engaged in activities “inconsistent with their capacity” in China. The diplomat was later released.
A Nieman Fellow at Harvard University in 2007, Dong was a visiting scholar and visiting professor at Keio University and Hokkaido University in Japan, his family said in a statement in April 2023.
He joined the Guangming Daily, affiliated to the ruling Communist Party, in 1987, after graduating from Peking University law school, and was the deputy editor of its commentary section.
He wrote opinion articles in Chinese media and liberal academic journals on topics from legal reforms to social issues, and co-edited a book promoting the rule of law in China.
His articles advocated moderate reforms while avoiding direct criticism of President Xi Jinping.
His family had initially kept news of his detention private in the hope that charges could be reduced or dropped, but were told in March 2023 that he would stand trial, they said in their statement.
Non-government bodies (NGOs) advocating press freedom have called for his release, with more than 700 journalists, academics and NGO workers signing an online petition for him to be freed.
“Dong Yuyu is a talented reporter and author whose work has long been respected by colleagues,” said Ann Marie Lipinski, curator of the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard.
“We stand with many in hoping for his release and return to his family.”
In February, a Beijing court handed a suspended death sentence to Australian writer and pro-democracy blogger, Yang Hengjun, on espionage charges.
Social media companies, UNICEF slam Australia’s under-16 ban
- Tech companies say the measure is littered with “many unanswered questions” ut they are willing to engage with the government on shaping its implementation
- UNICEF Australia also warned that the law was no “silver bullet” against online harm and could push kids into “covert and unregulated” spaces online
MELBOURNE: Social media giants on Friday hit out at a landmark Australian law banning them from signing up under-16s, describing it as a rush job littered with “many unanswered questions.”
The UN children’s charity UNICEF Australia joined the fray, warning the law was no “silver bullet” against online harm and could push kids into “covert and unregulated” spaces online.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said the legislation may not be implemented perfectly — much like existing age restrictions on alcohol — but it was “the right thing to do.”
The crackdown on sites like Facebook, Instagram and X, approved by parliament late Thursday, will lead to “better outcomes and less harm for young Australians,” he told reporters.
Platforms have a “social responsibility” to make children’s safety a priority, the prime minister said.
“We’ve got your back, is our message to Australian parents.”
Social media firms that fail to comply with the law face fines of up to Aus$50 million ($32.5 million).
TikTok said Friday it was “disappointed” in the law, accusing the government of ignoring mental health, online safety and youth experts who had opposed the ban.
“It’s entirely likely the ban could see young people pushed to darker corners of the Internet where no community guidelines, safety tools, or protections exist,” a TikTok spokesperson said.
Tech companies said that despite the law’s perceived shortcomings, they would engage with the government on shaping how it could be implemented in the next 12 months.
The legislation offers almost no details on how the rules will be enforced — prompting concern among experts that it will simply be a symbolic, unenforceable piece of legislation.
Meta — owner of Facebook and Instagram — called for consultation on the rules to ensure a “technically feasible outcome that does not place an onerous burden on parents and teens.”
But the company added it was concerned “about the process, which rushed the legislation through while failing to properly consider the evidence, what industry already does to ensure age-appropriate experiences, and the voices of young people.”
A Snapchat spokesperson said the company had raised “serious concerns” about the law and that “many unanswered questions” remained about how it would work.
But the company said it would engage closely with government to develop an approach balancing “privacy, safety and practicality.”
“As always, Snap will comply with any applicable laws and regulations in Australia,” it said.
UNICEF Australia policy chief Katie Maskiell said young people need to be protected online but also need to be included in the digital world.
“This ban risks pushing children into increasingly covert and unregulated online spaces as well as preventing them from accessing aspects of the online world essential to their wellbeing,” she said.
One of the biggest issues will be privacy — what age-verification information is used, how it is collected and by whom.
Social media companies remain adamant that age-verification should be the job of app stores, but the government believes tech platforms should be responsible.
Exemptions will likely be granted to some companies, such as WhatsApp and YouTube, which teenagers may need to use for recreation, school work or other reasons.
The legislation will be closely monitored by other countries, with many weighing whether to implement similar bans.
Lawmakers from Spain to Florida have proposed social media bans for young teens, although none of the measures have been implemented yet.
China has restricted access for minors since 2021, with under-14s not allowed to spend more than 40 minutes a day on Douyin, the Chinese version of TikTok.
Online gaming time for children is also limited in China.
Canada sues Google over alleged anticompetitive practices in online ads
- The Competition Bureau is asking a tribunal to order Google to sell its ad tech tools, which it uses "unlawfully" to maintain its dominant market position
- Google maintains the online advertising market is a highly competitive sector and that it intends to defend itself against the allegation
TORONTO: Canada’s antitrust watchdog said Thursday it is suing Google over alleged anticompetitive conduct in the tech giant’s online advertising business and wants the company to sell off two of its ad tech services and pay a penalty.
The Competition Bureau said that such action is necessary because an investigation into Google found that the company “unlawfully” tied together its ad tech tools to maintain its dominant market position.
The matter is now headed for the Competition Tribunal, a quasi-judicial body that hears cases brought forward by the competition commissioner about non-compliance with the Competition Act.
The bureau is asking the tribunal to order Google to sell its publisher ad server, DoubleClick for Publishers, and its ad exchange, AdX. It estimates Google holds a market share of 90 percent in publisher ad servers, 70 percent in advertiser networks, 60 percent in demand-side platforms and 50 percent in ad exchanges.
This dominance, the bureau said, has discouraged competition from rivals, inhibited innovation, inflated advertising costs and reduced publisher revenues.
“Google has abused its dominant position in online advertising in Canada by engaging in conduct that locks market participants into using its own ad tech tools, excluding competitors, and distorting the competitive process,” Matthew Boswell, Commissioner of Competition, said in a statement.
Google, however, maintains the online advertising market is a highly competitive sector.
Dan Taylor, Google’s vice president of global ads, said in a statement that the bureau’s complaint “ignores the intense competition where ad buyers and sellers have plenty of choice.”
The statement added that Google intends to defend itself against the allegation.
US regulators want a federal judge to break up Google to prevent the company from continuing to squash competition through its dominant search engine after a court found it had maintained an abusive monopoly over the past decade.
The proposed breakup, floated in a 23-page document filed this month by the US Department of Justice, calls for sweeping punishments that would include a sale of Google’s industry-leading Chrome web browser and impose restrictions to prevent Android from favoring its own search engine.
Australia passes landmark social media ban for under 16s
- Aussie premier Anthony Albanese chapioned the bill in an effort to take young Australians “off their phones”
- Critics say the ban would not “make social media safer for young people,” lacks details about its enforcement
MELBOURNE: Australian lawmakers passed landmark rules to ban under 16s from social media on Thursday, approving one of the world’s toughest crackdowns on popular sites like Facebook, Instagram and X.
The legislation ordering social media firms to take “reasonable steps” to prevent young teens from having accounts was passed in the Senate with 34 votes in favor and 19 against.
The firms — who face fines of up to Aus$50 million ($32.5 million) for failing to comply — have described the laws as “vague,” “problematic” and “rushed.”
The new rules will now return to the lower house — where lawmakers already backed the bill on Wednesday — for one final approval before it is all but certain to become law.
Speaking during the Senate debate, Greens politician Sarah Hanson-Young said the ban would not “make social media safer for young people.”
She said it was “devastating” that young people were “finding themselves addicted to these dangerous algorithms.”
Center-left Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, eyeing an election early next year, has enthusiastically championed the new rules and rallied Aussie parents to get behind it.
In the run up to the vote, he painted social media as “a platform for peer pressure, a driver of anxiety, a vehicle for scammers and, worst of all, a tool for online predators.”
He wanted young Australians “off their phones and onto the footy and cricket field, the tennis and netball courts, in the swimming pool.”
But young social media users, like 12-year-old Angus Lydom, are not impressed.
“I’d like to keep using it. And it’ll be a weird feeling to not have it, and be able to talk to all my friends at home,” he told AFP.
Many are likely to try to find ways around it.
“I’ll find a way. And so will all my other friends” Lydom said.
Similarly, 11-year-old Elsie Arkinstall said there was still a place for social media, particularly for children wanting to watch tutorials about baking or art.
“Kids and teens should be able to explore those techniques because you can’t learn all those things from books,” she added.
On paper, the ban is one of the strictest in the world.
But the current legislation offers almost no details on how the rules will be enforced — prompting concern among experts that it will simply be a symbolic piece of legislation that is unenforceable.
It will be at least 12 months before the details are worked out by regulators and the ban comes into effect.
Some companies will likely be granted exemptions, such as WhatsApp and YouTube, which teenagers may need to use for recreation, school work or other reasons.
Late amendments were introduced to ensure government-issued digital ID cannot be used as a means of age verification.
Social media expert Susan Grantham told AFP that digital literacy programs that teach children to think “critically” about what they see online should be adopted — similar to a model used in Finland.
The legislation will be closely monitored by other countries, with many weighing whether to implement similar bans.
Lawmakers from Spain to Florida have proposed social media bans for young teens, although none of the measures have been implemented yet.
China has restricted access for minors since 2021, with under-14s not allowed to spend more than 40 minutes a day on Douyin, the Chinese version of TikTok.
Online gaming time for children is also limited in China.
Microsoft faces wide-ranging US antitrust probe
- Competitors complain Microsoft locks customers into its cloud service
- FTC earlier set the stage for probe into Microsoft’s role in AI market
The US Federal Trade Commission has opened a broad antitrust investigation into Microsoft, including of its software licensing and cloud computing businesses, a source familiar with the matter said on Wednesday.
The probe was approved by FTC Chair Lina Khan ahead of her likely departure in January. The election of Donald Trump as US president, and the expectation he will appoint a fellow Republican with a softer approach toward business, leaves the outcome of the investigation up in the air.
The FTC is examining allegations the software giant is potentially abusing its market power in productivity software by imposing punitive licensing terms to prevent customers from moving their data from its Azure cloud service to other competitive platforms, sources confirmed earlier this month.
The FTC is also looking at practices related to cybersecurity and artificial intelligence products, the source said on Wednesday.
Microsoft declined to comment on Wednesday.
Competitors have criticized Microsoft’s practices they say keep customers locked into its cloud offering, Azure. The FTC fielded such complaints last year as it examined the cloud computing market.
NetChoice, a lobbying group that represents online companies including Amazon and Google, which compete with Microsoft in cloud computing, criticized Microsoft’s licensing policies, and its integration of AI tools into its Office and Outlook.
“Given that Microsoft is the world’s largest software company, dominating in productivity and operating systems software, the scale and consequences of its licensing decisions are extraordinary,” the group said.
Google in September complained to the European Commission about Microsoft’s practices, saying it made customers pay a 400 percent mark-up to keep running Windows Server on rival cloud computing operators, and gave them later and more limited security updates.
The FTC has demanded a broad range of detailed information from Microsoft, Bloomberg reported earlier on Wednesday.
The agency had already claimed jurisdiction over probes into Microsoft and OpenAI over competition in artificial intelligence, and started looking into Microsoft’s $650 million deal with AI startup Inflection AI.
Microsoft has been somewhat of an exception to US antitrust regulators’ recent campaign against allegedly anticompetitive practices at Big Tech companies.
Facebook owner Meta Platforms, Apple, and Amazon.com Inc. have all been accused by the US of unlawfully maintaining monopolies.
Alphabet’s Google is facing two lawsuits, including one where a judge found it unlawfully thwarted competition among online search engines.
Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella testified at Google’s trial, saying the search giant was using exclusive deals with publishers to lock up content used to train artificial intelligence.
It is unclear whether Trump will ease up on Big Tech, whose first administration launched several Big Tech probes. JD Vance, the incoming vice president, has expressed concern about the power the companies wield over public discourse.
Still, Microsoft has benefited from Trump policies in the past.
In 2019, the Pentagon awarded it a $10 billion cloud computing contract that Amazon had widely been expected to win. Amazon later alleged that Trump exerted improper pressure on military officials to steer the contract away from its Amazon Web Services unit.
